Because of the difficulties experienced in engagement with companies in the past, and especially with SMMEs, which are mostly operated by owners, it was sometimes very difficult to extrapolate information when distributing questionnaires before conducting the assessment.
The owner either performs operational, human resource and financial duties all on his/her own because of financial constraints in employing additional staff or is forced to use family members to manage these individual departments. This places strain on management, and could considerably affect the response time from participating companies. It was therefore imperative that a three-to-four week period was granted to respondents, and that continuous monitoring on a weekly basis be done.
The design of questionnaires was of vital importance as the questionnaires were used to extract the correct information from participants. They were designed and self-administered by the author of this dissertation. Three questionnaires were constructed to ensure that information relevant to each group was gathered, and these were distributed to industry inclusive of large companies and the SMME sector, government stakeholders and other organisations within the field of resource efficiency and cleaner production.
The survey collected opinions and data from 14 questionnaires completed by industry participants, 5 from government stakeholders, and 7 from other organisations as well as resource efficiency and cleaner production-related entities.
Note that while these do not constitute statistically significant surveys, the design of questionnaires and interviews, as well as those who were targeted, ensured that the factors that are most salient to this study were extracted with a reasonable degree of confidence. These were then cross-referenced and tested against the broader body of literature and empirical evidence (i.e. both global and local) where these were available.
Cases within various sectors were comparatively analysed to assess the phase of implementation and the inhibitive factors that had prevented companies from introducing recommendations within their business, as well as how government had formally provided financial assistance to these companies.
It is important that industry be exposed to their environmental pollution limitations, and questions reflected strongly on referential direction and guidance to provide companies with conclusive ideas on ensuring compliance. A list of companies was selected, and a sequence of interaction with companies was prepared with timeframes to ensure that an effective process of engagement took place.
The information-gathering process was of utmost importance as it identified areas of weakness and challenges hampering resource efficiency and cleaner production implementation, as well as key incentive mechanisms available to support industry on ascertaining their short- and long-term environmental goals. Information sharing is the key to success for any organisation, but a mythical perception exists that industry is very resistant because of concerns that competitors might gain access to this information. Government has also restricted the sharing of information as a result of political conflicts and tensions between ministries, which sometimes deteriorate within the tiers of local and provincial government.
Elaboration on certain key focus issues such as the key challenges faced and project failures experienced is limited because of political agendas and levels of cooperation among developing and developed countries. The relationship between countries in the developing world still needs to be harnessed to the extent that the level of trust can be strengthened. Developed countries, however, have become the catalyst in assisting poorer communities because of their endeavours to fund and support projects within these countries.
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS
This section presents the information provided by the respondents within the three target groups, and based on the responses, some salient elements were identified as either barriers or opportunities that could have a potential influence on RECP in general. These areas are discussed in detail below. The following key elements were identified from an analysis of the questionnaires:
A. The levels of awareness raised concerns that the RECP programme was not familiar to many.
B. The level of expertise of service providers to validate the specific outcomes as initially presented or marketed to industry.
C. Internal expertise within companies to ensure sustainable practices and implementation.
D. The priorities of industry to ensure alignment of resource optimisation to business imperatives to meet triple bottom-line criteria.
E. In-depth promotion of incentive programmes for industry to ascertain viability of RECP assessment recommendations and meet capital investment requirements beyond the boundaries and limitations of companies.
F. Responsiveness to cleaner technologies to revitalise and shift industry in using more efficient equipment to reduce costs and at the same time increase profitability.
G. The receptiveness to international initiatives that might help boost industry and make it more competitive within the global economy of trade.
The tables and responses highlighted below are crucial to understand what the barriers and opportunities for RECP within South Africa are, and to also ascertain what the understanding of each group is and to help elevate or redirect energies relating to certain key aspects, such as the importance of decoupling, economic growth, sustainable consumption and production, and others. It should also be noted that certain respondents could respond with both a YES and NO, as they could partly agree and disagree with respective questions, because of having both biased and unbiased views.
Below are the tables of respondent groups as received, and just below are areas of discussion that require further intervention and support to some degree.
Table 1: Industry Responses
QUESTION YES NO
1. Were you aware of the concept Resource Efficiency and Cleaner Production (RECP) at the time of engaging with the
NCPC–SA? 5 9
2. Did you find the RECP assessment a useful and value-
adding initiative for your business? 14
3. Was sufficient clarity provided on the processes and
formalities by the RECP team throughout the assessment? 14 4. Was the service provider employed to conduct the
assessment adequately equipped in terms of expertise and
knowledge? 14
5. Did you find that the employees within your business were aware of the cleaner production assessment and the
concept of RECP? 7 7
6. Do you think that sufficient training was provided to your
internal champion? 8 5
7. Were the RECP recommendations identified during the
assessment, feasible for implementation? 14 2
8. Did the assessment meet the needs and expectations of
management? 14
9. Were any of the recommendations implemented?
11 6
10. Did the company have internal resources/manpower to
manage the implementation process? 9 4
11. Were any recommendations specific to the need for cleaner
technologies? 9 7
12. Are you aware of any government incentive programmes
that exist to assist with implementation? 10 4
13. Have you tried accessing these incentive programmes?
5 8
14. Having participated in an RECP assessment, do you think
that it has added value to your bottom line? 13 3 15. Do you think that RECP initiatives have the potential to 11 3
create additional jobs within your business?
16. Are you familiar with other environmental concepts such as Eco-labelling, Life-Cycle Management, Environmental Management Systems, Life-Cycle Assessments, Life-Cycle Thinking, Carbon Foot-printing, etc.?
9 5
17. Do you think that government understands the needs of
industry? 5 8
Table 2: Civil Society Responses
QUESTION YES NO
1. Are you familiar with the NCPC–SA and its programmes?
7 0
2. Are you familiar with the concept Resource Efficiency and
Cleaner Production (RECP)? 7 0
3. Have you ever participated in RECP projects of any nature?
6 0
4. Do you think that within the global RECP environment there
are adequate technical support structures in place? 4 3 5. Do we have adequate technical support structures in place
within South Africa? 5 2
6. Do you think that RECP initiatives have the potential to
create additional jobs within industry? 5 2
7. Are you familiar with other environmental concepts such as Eco-labelling, Life-Cycle Management, Environmental Management Systems, Life-Cycle Assessments, Life-Cycle Thinking, Carbon Foot-printing, etc.?
7 0
Table 3: Government Responses
QUESTION YES NO
1. Were you aware of the concept Resource Efficiency and Cleaner Production (RECP) at the time of engaging with the
NCPC–SA? 4 1
2. Are you actively involved with projects relating to the NCPC–
SA and other RECP initiatives’? 5 0
3. Do you consider industry’s environmental performance as
important as economical performance in terms of sustaining 5 0
industry?
4. Do you think that the projects and initiatives undertaken by the NCPC–SA are effective and of value to support
industry? 5 1
5. Is any financial support available from your department to assist industry with implementation of RECP assessment
recommendations? 4 1
6. Are you aware of any other government incentive programmes that exist to assist with implementation of
RECP? 2 3
7. Do you think that RECP has added value to industry over
the past few years? 5 1
8. Do you think that RECP initiatives have the potential to create additional jobs within the South African industry? 5 9. Are you familiar with other environmental concepts such as
Eco-labelling, Life-Cycle Management, Environmental Management Systems, Life-Cycle Assessments, Life-Cycle Thinking, Carbon Foot-printing, etc.?
5 0
10. Do you think that government understands the needs of
industry? 4 1
Therefore based on the questionnaires and responses of each target group and to also grasp the understanding of each group, the various elements identified will be discussed in detail within the section below. Note that where reference is made to the numbers of yes or no responses obtained in the following sections, these are not considered as statistically significant accounts, but are merely being reported upon as the outcomes of this study, and remain restricted to this study alone.
A. Awareness
1. Programme Awareness
Promoting resource efficiency and cleaner production nationally to industry can be challenging if the programme does not reach all involved stakeholders. Some of the priority sectors identified in the industrial policy action plan have achieved more success in terms of penetration, while others have seen less participation. This also reflects the dominance in certain provinces, for example, clothing and textiles in the
Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal (agro-processing being fairly big in the Western Cape), with mining and chemicals having a huge presence in Gauteng. Energy and resources are therefore deployed to elevate industries and businesses in the three main GDP contributing provinces, and lesser concentration and projects take place in smaller provinces in terms of economic contribution.
Based on the completed questionnaires returned, it is important to note that 16 were aware of the NCPC–SA and the offerings of the organisation, whereas 10 had no idea that the programme existed.
Industry reflected the greatest lack of awareness of the RECP programme, with 9 of the 14 having no knowledge of the programme. Civil society, on the other hand, seemed well aware of the programme, whereas 1 of the 4 government respondents acknowledged that she had no knowledge of the NCPC–SA’s existence.
Government survey responses also indicated familiarity with the NCPC–SA, as some departments had been directly involved with the inception and establishment of the programme in 2002 (refer to Appendix C, A.1). Another indicated that he had been the manager of the programme.
It is important to note that government designed this programme to assist industry technically, and at a national level the objectives had been discussed and agreed to among all the relevant departments. Communication to provincial and local governments therefore became part of the deliverables of the programme, with industry awareness taking place through associations and other stakeholder forums.
This is crucial in extending the footprint of the programme across South Africa, and engaging with industry bodies in collaboration with government becomes key to successful awareness creation. Opportunities and platforms such as this prove to be impactful as the understanding of programme awareness is better received and has far more depth and reach in terms of numbers.
Awareness can therefore be considered instrumental to the success of the RECP programme, and effective marketing could be key to penetrate industry and promote the importance as well as the benefits of adopting methodologies that could result in resource optimisation.
2. RECP Concept Awareness
The responses around the familiarity of the concept of RECP received from the civil society group highlighted that they were much more aware of the topic as they operated within the environmental field. Civil society also responds positively in terms of NCPC–SA recognition and awareness, as some members of civil society have either been directly or indirectly involved with programmes relating to RECP locally or abroad. One participant stated that globally, RECP is enjoying increased attention and a number of multilateral agencies provide support for it (refer to Appendix B, A.6).
This is supported through the green economy report that allocating up to 2 percent of global GDP (approximately US$ 65 trillion in 2011) over the next 40 years to jump- start a green transformation of the global economy would generate as much growth and employment as a brown economy, and outperform the latter in the medium and long run, while yielding significantly more environmental and social benefits and reducing the risks of global climate change (UNEP, 2013b).
Of the five government respondents, four had been aware of the programme, but one acknowledged that she was not aware of it until she had been formally introduced to members of the NCPC–SA. This though is a common finding, as some departments within national government were not aware that the programme existed, other than the Department of Environmental Affairs and the Department of Trade and Industry.
Of the 14 industry responses to whether employees within the business were aware of the assessment and the concept of RECP, seven confirmed that they were, whereas the other seven admitted that they had only become aware after the respective project managers had engaged with them. One civil society respondent indicated that RECP was not a support mechanism in itself, but that the NCPC–SA provided this support to industry in implementing RECP (refer to Appendix B, A.2).
Another indicated that companies are generally production focused and often do not have the time or budget to analyse innovative alternative RECP approaches, as well as not being exposed to the latest developments in technology.
It is important to note that project managers within the NCPC–SA have undertaken activities to increase awareness, and some level of direct intervention was initiated
as well as through contact with eThekwini Municipality and other platforms where presentations were delivered (refer to Appendix A, A.1). This has proved to be a key component in the awareness campaign in both the recruitment drive as well as in transferring knowledge relating to resource efficiency and environmental improvement programmes of government.
What is evident in assessing the above, is that the awareness component of the RECP programme and concept is severely lacking among respondents in the CTFL, agro-processing and chemical sectors. This can be identified through the better response of civil society respondents who clearly expressed their knowledge and involvement within the RECP domain. Government, on the other hand, seems to be on the same wavelength as civil society, as they were involved with the establishment of the NCPC–SA in 2002.
The NCPC–SA, through its project managers, also seems to have been instrumental in gaining access to industry, but this does not seem to have been enough, considering the input from respondents who admitted that they were unaware of the centre or the programme until approached by the NCPC-SA.
B. Service Provider Expertise
Of the 14 industry respondents on the level of service provider expertise, all confirmed that consultants were adequately equipped to conduct the assessments at their individual plants. One industry respondent indicated that concepts were clearly explained and backed up with detailed workings on current costs, recommended alternatives, projected savings and the capital investment required to realise those savings, and that a detailed final presentation was given outlining the outcome of the assessment (refer to Appendix A, B.6). Another respondent highlighted that the service providers demonstrated a deep understanding of their subject matter, for example, good knowledge of the tanning industry, and that they also explained their process and associated results in an “easy to understand” way.
A respondent from civil society emphasised a lack of willingness to be innovative, and apathy regarding implementing changes. Senior management within a company was required to make this an operational requirement to constantly try to improve efficiency (refer to Appendix B, A.13). Furthermore, another implied that on a
technical level, there is no common structure that acts as technical radar to describe clean technologies, and every consultant has to work on his/her own little exchange of experiences (refer to Appendix B, A.6).
One civil society participant demonstrated the effectiveness of the NCPC–SA that has trained and technically equipped many consultants in general principles of RECP, as well as in specific systems’ optimisation training such as steam, compressed air, etc. (refer to Appendix B, A.8), while another highlighted the numerous private sector consultancies that offer the same service, with the NCPC–
SA playing a pivotal role in supporting them.
There are four main groups of service providers that play a role in the South African energy services market (GreenCape, 2017), namely:
■ consultancy service providers
■ technology suppliers
■ energy service companies (ESCos)
■ engineering procurement contractors.
Supporting suggestions (refer to Appendix B. A.10) were also made to strengthen the service-provider base, and priorities included the following:
Knowledge of business decision making at management level.
Knowledge of economic challenges.
Competencies to convince companies to follow up and support the implementation process.
In evaluating the above responses, there seem to be adequate competent service providers within the RECP domain, and this is supported by industry feedback in the completed questionnaires, whereby it highlights that adequate, clear and concise information was provided to management. One respondent noted that clear and concise information was provided, along with graphs and slides, and continuous discussions between the service providers and company representatives strengthened the ability to implement the recommendations more amicably (refer to Appendix A, B.6).
A shortfall, however, is the point raised by one industry participant, stating that the finer details around the anaerobic digester were not clear, and this vagueness
resulted in the recommendations provided being delayed. On the other hand, adequate training has been provided according to civil society respondents, and the courses provided by the NCPC–SA has been supportive to service providers in providing a more holistic and in-depth assessment to industry.
It is important to note that the RECP intervention could vary from company to company and sector to sector, and the depth of the assessment is very dependent on the expertise of the service provider and needs of the company. This therefore necessitates that service providers have more sector-specific engagements to gain technical understanding and expertise.
This will stimulate and support the interrogation of technical offerings, and also provide a platform and opportunity to interact with experts and debate constructive options to improve, which will then also strengthen the programme’s objective of satisfying the needs of clients.
C. Lack of Internal Technical Expertise
Technical personnel and training for internal champions based on the response from industry, highlighted that eight agreed that sufficient training had been provided across sectors, whereas five felt that not enough was done to meet their expectations. Internal environmental programme committees—according to industry questionnaires completed—reflected that businesses are conscious of the environment and the impact that global pressures have on industry and the economy.
In terms of recommendations, the majority of options identified by industrial participants acknowledged that most of them were feasible for implementation.
However, the time and cost of implementation were important. Even though all participants indicated that the RECP assessment met the needs and expectations of individual companies, one participant indicated that they lacked the internal resources to manage implementation in terms of the themes of water, energy, materials, and waste (refer to Appendix A, D.10).
Of the 13 respondents on internal capacity to manage the implementation process presented in the tables above, nine indicated that they were adequately equipped, whereas four mentioned that they had little or no resources. One civil society